Low light using Canon 5DSR
Jul 19, 2020 11:34:26 #
I have used a 5dsr since it came out. Saying it is not good in low light is not an accurate statement. The camera does not perform as well as some other cameras at very high ISO numbers, but this of us who rarely shoot above ISO 1000 have not problems. I generally do not want to shoot at very high iso because when I shoot a dark scene I want it to look like a dark scene. The attached image was taken on a tripod before sunrise at Iso 400. The camera handled this early morning scene without any problems.
Jul 19, 2020 11:37:59 #
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
I am not complaining--I knew when I bought it was not good in low light. Others have been asking me about this camera and I tried to explain this is a problem with high megapixel cameras across the board. Not everyone knows this. Just trying to impart my knowledge to others. This forum is for information also. People can garner this information and make a decision based on others experience.
Your intent is all well and good, but your first sentence says “this camera has a problem....”
Jul 19, 2020 11:47:50 #
Sematics aside if you look at these 2 blue period pictures I took with the 5DSR at iso 400 they look incredible. That being said using my Canon 80D crop sensor with all the settings equal except at iso 100 they look similar. What that tells me the iso has be set higher to duplicate the results. The 51 megapixel sensor needs higher iso and shows it is not as sensitive as the 80D sensor. This is explained in the rollout of the R5 vs R6 . The sensor on the R6 is more sensitive to light hence better in low light
Jul 19, 2020 12:56:46 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
The Canon 5DS-series cameras really aren't designed for low light shooting. They have a native ISO range of only 100 to 6400, expandable to 50 and 12800.
Maybe Canon was too restrictive, limiting the cameras' ISO range so severely. The alternative would have been to allow more gain for higher ISOs.... resulting in more digital noise for people to complain about!
Some other camera manufacturers take the opposite tack by allowing absurdly high ISOs that no self-respecting photographer would ever use, due to the massive amount of noise! In my opinion, ISO ranges that reaches into high 6 figure and sometimes even 7 figure range are more about bragging rights than real world usability.
However, I suspect that Canon primarily was looking at medium format digital as their primary competition for the 50MP 5DS-series cameras they introduced in 2015. Up to 2014 MF digital had only used CCD sensors, which had severely limited ISO ranges. Most of them were capped at ISO 1600 and even using that was somewhat questionable. The CMOS sensors Canon had been using in all but one of their DSLRs were able to handle significantly higher ISO.... And 6400 the 5DS could do was 2 to 3 stops higher than MF were doing when the Canon cameras were in development.
MF digital went through a transition from CCD to CMOS at almost exactly the same time that the 5DS was reaching the marketplace (full frame, APS-C and Micro 4/3 digital manufacturers other than Canon had similarly transitioned from CCD to CMOS in the 2005-2008 time frame). The result was much higher usable ISO in the newer MF cameras, too. However, compared to MF digital the 5DS-series remained competitive by being more affordable, offering superior AF and faster continuous shooting rates, as well as being able to share a system of EF lenses that not only is far more extensive, but also tend to be considerably less expensive than comparable lenses for MF.
I think it's interesting that the 5DS' pixel pitch (size and density) is virtually identical to the 20MP 7D Mark II's... yet the crop sensor camera has a higher ISO range: 100-16000, expandable to 25600 and 51200 (not that I'd EVER use those expansion ISOs).
If you want higher usable ISO in full frame, the 5D Mark IV (or the new EOS R5) would be a better option. Of course, it drops in resolution to 30MP (vs 50MP in the 5DS), but offers ISO 100 to 32000, expandable to 50 and 102400. Using a newer sensor, the 5DIV is also rated by DXO to have considerably wider dynamic range (13.6 stops vs 12.4 stops in 5DS), and ever so slightly more color depth (24.8 vs 24.7).
The upcoming R5 might be the best of both worlds... with both 45MP resolution and slightly increased ISO range (100-51200, expandable to the same 50 and 102400) compare to 5DIV. It remains to be seen what the new camera's actually usable ISO will be, along with how its dynamic range and color depth measure up.
All this DOESN'T MEAN you can't take low light shots with a 5DS. It just means that instead of boosting the ISO, you have to lengthen the shutter speed and/or use a larger aperture. Since you're already using a tripod, longer shutter speeds should be pretty easily doable.
P.S. All the images examples being posted in this thread are interesting, but would be a whole lot better if we could see a larger version and the EXIF data... which is easily done by checking off "store original" and uploading an image with its EXIF intact. (I think I read there's a 20MB limit of file size here on UHH, so might need to downsize a 5DS image before it will be possible to post it that way.)
Maybe Canon was too restrictive, limiting the cameras' ISO range so severely. The alternative would have been to allow more gain for higher ISOs.... resulting in more digital noise for people to complain about!
Some other camera manufacturers take the opposite tack by allowing absurdly high ISOs that no self-respecting photographer would ever use, due to the massive amount of noise! In my opinion, ISO ranges that reaches into high 6 figure and sometimes even 7 figure range are more about bragging rights than real world usability.
However, I suspect that Canon primarily was looking at medium format digital as their primary competition for the 50MP 5DS-series cameras they introduced in 2015. Up to 2014 MF digital had only used CCD sensors, which had severely limited ISO ranges. Most of them were capped at ISO 1600 and even using that was somewhat questionable. The CMOS sensors Canon had been using in all but one of their DSLRs were able to handle significantly higher ISO.... And 6400 the 5DS could do was 2 to 3 stops higher than MF were doing when the Canon cameras were in development.
MF digital went through a transition from CCD to CMOS at almost exactly the same time that the 5DS was reaching the marketplace (full frame, APS-C and Micro 4/3 digital manufacturers other than Canon had similarly transitioned from CCD to CMOS in the 2005-2008 time frame). The result was much higher usable ISO in the newer MF cameras, too. However, compared to MF digital the 5DS-series remained competitive by being more affordable, offering superior AF and faster continuous shooting rates, as well as being able to share a system of EF lenses that not only is far more extensive, but also tend to be considerably less expensive than comparable lenses for MF.
I think it's interesting that the 5DS' pixel pitch (size and density) is virtually identical to the 20MP 7D Mark II's... yet the crop sensor camera has a higher ISO range: 100-16000, expandable to 25600 and 51200 (not that I'd EVER use those expansion ISOs).
If you want higher usable ISO in full frame, the 5D Mark IV (or the new EOS R5) would be a better option. Of course, it drops in resolution to 30MP (vs 50MP in the 5DS), but offers ISO 100 to 32000, expandable to 50 and 102400. Using a newer sensor, the 5DIV is also rated by DXO to have considerably wider dynamic range (13.6 stops vs 12.4 stops in 5DS), and ever so slightly more color depth (24.8 vs 24.7).
The upcoming R5 might be the best of both worlds... with both 45MP resolution and slightly increased ISO range (100-51200, expandable to the same 50 and 102400) compare to 5DIV. It remains to be seen what the new camera's actually usable ISO will be, along with how its dynamic range and color depth measure up.
All this DOESN'T MEAN you can't take low light shots with a 5DS. It just means that instead of boosting the ISO, you have to lengthen the shutter speed and/or use a larger aperture. Since you're already using a tripod, longer shutter speeds should be pretty easily doable.
P.S. All the images examples being posted in this thread are interesting, but would be a whole lot better if we could see a larger version and the EXIF data... which is easily done by checking off "store original" and uploading an image with its EXIF intact. (I think I read there's a 20MB limit of file size here on UHH, so might need to downsize a 5DS image before it will be possible to post it that way.)
Jul 19, 2020 13:32:08 #
clickety wrote:
Please explain what you call “problems with low light” because I’m considering a purchase.
The 5DSR, unlike the 5DIV, has an extra high pixel count sensor (50.6 MP). Such sensors are notoriously less sensitive to light. The resulting images of shots taken in low light tend to be noisy. Also, the auto focus will fail sooner as light drops.
Jul 19, 2020 13:36:17 #
Thank you for telling me how to get a larger image. These small images don't in any way do the photo justice.
As far as using a longer shutter speed you would also alter the image(H2O) smoothing it somewhat as the first image in this thread. I chose to up the iso more accurately representing the choppiness of the water. This is what so good about a real camera versus a cell phone. You have so much more control to make the image one wants.
As far as using a longer shutter speed you would also alter the image(H2O) smoothing it somewhat as the first image in this thread. I chose to up the iso more accurately representing the choppiness of the water. This is what so good about a real camera versus a cell phone. You have so much more control to make the image one wants.
Jul 19, 2020 13:47:03 #
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
Thank you for telling me how to get a larger image. These small images don't in any way do the photo justice.
As far as using a longer shutter speed you would also alter the image(H2O) smoothing it somewhat as the first image in this thread. I chose to up the iso more accurately representing the choppiness of the water. This is what so good about a real camera versus a cell phone. You have so much more control to make the image one wants.
As far as using a longer shutter speed you would also alter the image(H2O) smoothing it somewhat as the first image in this thread. I chose to up the iso more accurately representing the choppiness of the water. This is what so good about a real camera versus a cell phone. You have so much more control to make the image one wants.
If you click "Quote Reply" as I did here, we can tell who you are talking to.
Jul 19, 2020 13:49:13 #
PHRubin wrote:
If you click "Quote Reply" as I did here, we can tell who you are talking to.
Thanks, New to this, enjoy the chatter and might learn something once in awhile.
Jul 19, 2020 14:16:20 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Ysarex wrote:
Not as good as what? There's something kind of off in complaining about one of the best performing cameras made because it's not the very best. Sort of like if I whined that I was really unhappy with my Lexus because it wasn't a ____________. There's also something off about using the term low-light in the context of an ISO 400 shot. I just used my little 1" compact at ISO 3200 -- that was low-light.
Joe
Joe
Even ISO 3200 is not particularly high today. There are a number of cameras that can capture relatively noise free images at ISO 12800, ISO 25600 and even higher..
Jul 19, 2020 15:06:42 #
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
This camera has problems with low light By tripoding and going down 1 full stop and iso 400 it performs quite well.
I have been using my Canon 5Dsr for almost 4 years and have taken varieties of photos. This is a great camera.
If a person is not getting great photos from this camera, then it is the photographer's fault.
Jul 19, 2020 15:24:50 #
Jul 19, 2020 16:02:12 #
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
Do you use it for wildlife
Click his user name (any UHH's user name) and go to their profile and then to the link to new post created by that user. Browse the entries in the Photo Gallery, and similar subsections, to review their work and level of expertise.
Jul 19, 2020 16:29:07 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Just asking - So, guessing the key to "good" (less noise) photos in low light is fewer pixels, but larger in size, positioned at a favorable angle to capture maximum light?
Would there be a significantly "better" difference for low light use with a CCD sensor vs a CMOS sensor aside from the actual pixel size(s)?
Anyone? - Trying to learn.
Good discussion.
Would there be a significantly "better" difference for low light use with a CCD sensor vs a CMOS sensor aside from the actual pixel size(s)?
Anyone? - Trying to learn.
Good discussion.
Jul 20, 2020 11:33:07 #
The 5 D mark IV is a great camera, The 2nd one I purchase with the Canon log for enhanced videos. This camer will take excellent low light pictures.
Jan 3, 2021 13:39:11 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.